RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:29 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: We Will Not Be Afraid I think this is an example of what Charlie is talking about when he describes erosion: *** http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn09302006.html The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governing the treatment of detainees is the culmination of relentless fear-mongering by the Bush administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks. Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, unlawful enemy combatants. I see where it sorta does that, but her statement is still disingenuous. Basically, it is possible for Bush to rule that a US citizen is an unlawful enemy combatant, but the law that lets him do that specifically excludes citizens from being tried by these military commissions. I found the bill at a Georgetown Law School website. It's at: http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/MilitaryCommissions.pdf# search=%22military%20commission%20act%20of%202006%20text%22 http://tinyurl.com/gvyrk I quickly read through the bill...and then focused on the beginning, where the scope of the bill was set out. Let me quote from the bill: quote Alien unlawful enemy combatants may be tried for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commissions committed against the United States or its co-belligerents before, on, or after September 11, 2001. end quote This is the key provision of the bill, as far as I can see. (If someone else wants to also go through the bill, I'd be more than happy to have them double check my work.) There are some key words here that need to be definedwhich they are in the bill: quote ALIEN.-The term 'alien' means an in- 3 dividual who is not a citizen of the United States. (7) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.-The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means an indi- vidual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense- (A) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization-including but not limited to al Qaeda, the Taliban, any interna- tional terrorist organization, or associated forces-engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in viola- tion of the law of war; (B) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so en- gaged; or (C) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so en- gaged. This definition includes any individual de- termined by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, before the effective date of this Act, to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant, but ex- cludes any alien determined by the President or the Secretary of Defense (whether on an individual- ized or collective basis), or by any competent tri- bunal established under their authority, to be (i) a lawful enemy combatant (including a prisoner of war), or (ii) a protected person whose trial by these military commissions would be inconsistent with Articles 64-76 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949. For purposes of this sec- tion, the term protected person refers to the cate- gory of persons described in Article 4 of the Ge- neva Convention Relative to the Protection of Ci- vilian Persons in Time of War of August 12, 1949. end quote Now, do I find problems with this? Yes. I think it's overly broad, and risks allowing presidents to make broad interpretations of this law to detain non-citizens on their word alone. I agree with Specter that some parts of this law are probably unconstitutional. But, the law _specifically_ addresses the treatment of aliens, not citizens. So, by this law, I think the President could declare a citizen an unlawful enemy combatant, but he clearly could not subject a citizen to these tribunals...because...by the definition of alien given within the bill...citizens are excluded. Let me go back to my problem with this bill, and with Bush's actions in general. The main risk to liberty that I see from what Bush has done is not who he has spied on, or the imprisonment of foreign nationals. In doing this, he has pushed some boundaries with his actions, but those actions have had minimal impact on Americans and legal alien residents. For example, his use of warrentless wiretaps has not resulted in a single indictment. Where I see the problem lies is that, the claims he makes as well as his actions could set a precedent for later Presidents to act in a manner that attacks the liberties of Americans and legal aliens. Since the war on terror will probably last decades, there is a real risk of some future president having a Hoover-like domestic spying
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
Dan Minette wrote; But, the law _specifically_ addresses the treatment of aliens, not citizens. So, by this law, I think the President could declare a citizen an unlawful enemy combatant, but he clearly could not subject a citizen to these tribunals...because...by the definition of alien given within the bill...citizens are excluded. I am curious about how you reached this conclusion. The Bill nowhere says that this law is meant only for aliens, and the term 'Unlawful Enemy Combatant' is defined in such a way as to make citizens vulnerable. All the Bill does is define alien, and UEC, and Protected Persons, and mentions that the later two categories would be decided by the President's say-so. The only other category to be excluded from an automatic application of the Bill is Lawful Enemy Combatants, and no US citizen would fit the bill for that. But, given the nature and scope attack on the US on 9-11, I am confused. What *was* the nature and scope of the attack, other than being a terrorist attack which left approximately 3000 people dead? we see a relatively modest risk to liberty in our response... http://www.counterpunch.com/ramakrishnan10032006.html Most Americans do not see the Republicans as a worst risk than Al Quida. By arguing that they are, talking about Republicans as RepubliKKKans and the new Gestapo, leftists can whip up the faithful, but do not contribute to a meaningful discussion. Discussions of ensuring that the law doesn't enable some future president to restrict American liberty may not be as stirring as yelling Gestapo, but I think they would be much more productive. Uh uh. Terrorists are never as bad a risk as a Govt intent on stripping rights from its citizens. All the terrorists can do is kill some people and blow up some buildings/vehicles. Govts can tear apart the fabric of a polity. Pointing that out, and resisting it, is not fear-mongering, it is the duty of every citizen. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ritu Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:14 AM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: We Will Not Be Afraid Dan Minette wrote; But, the law _specifically_ addresses the treatment of aliens, not citizens. So, by this law, I think the President could declare a citizen an unlawful enemy combatant, but he clearly could not subject a citizen to these tribunals...because...by the definition of alien given within the bill...citizens are excluded. I am curious about how you reached this conclusion. The Bill nowhere says that this law is meant only for aliens, and the term 'Unlawful Enemy Combatant' is defined in such a way as to make citizens vulnerable. I quoted the part that said it quote Alien unlawful enemy combatants may be tried for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commissions committed against the United States or its co-belligerents before, on, or after September 11, 2001. end quote That is the clause that sets up the procedures. It clearly refers not to just unlawful enemy combatants, but alien unlawful enemy combatants. The key is reading chapter 47 of the bill...where my quote comes from. Earlier it says: quote (a) PURPOSE.-This chapter codifies and estab- lishes procedures governing the use of military commis- sions to try unlawful enemy combatants for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commissions. end quote So, the bill states specifically that it's chapter 47 that codifies the procedures for using military commissions to try unlawful enemy combatants. Later in the chapter it says Alien unlawful enemy combatants may be tried. Nowhere does it say that citizens who are unlawful enemy combatants. I am confused. What *was* the nature and scope of the attack, other than being a terrorist attack which left approximately 3000 people dead? The scope of the attack was one that, with bad luck, could have killed 50k. The twin towers workers and visitors numbered that many. After the earlier AQ attack on the WTC, '93 I think, it took about 9 hours to clear the buildings. Uh uh. Terrorists are never as bad a risk as a Govt intent on stripping rights from its citizens. The case that the government is intent on stripping rights from its citizens has not been well made. There is a lot of hyperbola involved. Especially when the word unprecedented is used. Since 9-11, IIRC, _one_ American out of 300 million has been declared an unlawful enemy combatant...and the justification is that he renounced his citizenship by fighting with a foreign army against US troops. I do not see this as an indication that this government is intent in stripping rights from its citizens. All the terrorists can do is kill some people and blow up some buildings/vehicles. But, when some approaches hundreds of thousands, then it falls in a different category than the Canary Warf bombings. If you just look at the risk assessment Senator Bob Kerry (not John Kerry) made as part of a bi-partisian commission working _before_ 9-11, the risk of massive loss of life is considered quite severe. The resultant risk to liberty has been for non-Americansin particular illegal aliens. To focus this, let me ask one question. What liberties have American citizens lost during the last 5 years? Now, I think an argument that privacy has been reduced carries some weight, but I don't think that's the same as a reduction of liberty. Let me give one example of this. Phone calling patterns of many US citizens have been given to the government because the government said they wanted them to do pattern recognition to spot terrorists. When this was revealed, polls showed that most Americans were not extremely worried about it. The issue had no legs...which really showed that most Americans weren't too worried. The best explanation for this is that similar information is already being bought and sold on the open market for advertising campaigns. My Kroeger's discount card lets them have detailed records of my purchasing patterns. They promised not to sell it, but it would be legal for them to do it. Govts can tear apart the fabric of a polity. Pointing that out, and resisting it, is not fear-mongering, it is the duty of every citizen. But, one should point it out _accurately_. Making false and misleading statements about what the law states is fear mongering. Governments could tear apart the fabric of society. But, the data indicates that this one is not doing this. Spying on a far lower level than has been prevalent during the 20th century is not an unprecedented attack. Stating that it is one is false. US actions against foreign combatants outside of the US may be wrong and immoral, but they are not a risk to US citizens. The law addresses a Supreme Court decision on the trial of aliens who were captured outside of
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Minette Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:11 PM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: We Will Not Be Afraid I am confused. What *was* the nature and scope of the attack, other than being a terrorist attack which left approximately 3000 people dead? The scope of the attack was one that, with bad luck, could have killed 50k. The nature of the attack was that it was made by folks hiding among the general population, pretending to be engaged in lawful activities. Contrast this with Pearl Harbor, where the attackers were clearly members of the air force of Japan. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
DanM said: The nature of the attack was that it was made by folks hiding among the general population, pretending to be engaged in lawful activities. Contrast this with Pearl Harbor, where the attackers were clearly members of the air force of Japan. Weren't they members of the Imperial Japanese Navy? Rich GCU Pedantic ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Baker Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 1:14 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: We Will Not Be Afraid DanM said: The nature of the attack was that it was made by folks hiding among the general population, pretending to be engaged in lawful activities. Contrast this with Pearl Harbor, where the attackers were clearly members of the air force of Japan. Weren't they members of the Imperial Japanese Navy? I thought about saying that, but I wasn't up on the divisions of the Japanese military so I guessed. Thanks for the correction, Dr. Pedantic. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: We Will Not Be Afraid
At 01:17 PM Friday 10/6/2006, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Baker Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 1:14 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: We Will Not Be Afraid DanM said: The nature of the attack was that it was made by folks hiding among the general population, pretending to be engaged in lawful activities. Contrast this with Pearl Harbor, where the attackers were clearly members of the air force of Japan. Weren't they members of the Imperial Japanese Navy? I thought about saying that, but I wasn't up on the divisions of the Japanese military so I guessed. Thanks for the correction, Dr. Pedantic. Dan M. ¬(PC) In any case, someone on the ground looked up and remarked, It's December and there's a nip in the air . . . /¬(PC) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Someone Must Tell Them
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Horn, John wrote: On Behalf Of Deborah Harrell these hypocrites, such as the Foley case, and even rabid rightists will see them for what they are: power-grabbing immoral elitists. They are politicians...what else would they be? Right, left, they are all hungry for power and all tha goes with it. I was refering in particular to the chest-thumping about 'moral decay in America' by far-righters, especially WRT gay equality and teen sex; child porn ought to be despicable no matter where on the political spectrum one falls. The Dems have failed to present a coherent opposition plan to the Repubs, as others have pointed out (and I think I have commented on in the past also); I'm an independent and wish there was a party of moderation and middle ground, as I have been 'voting against' rather than 'voting for' major candidates in the last two presidential elections. Remember the entomology of the word politics: from poli, from the Greek polloi meaning many + tics, from ticks, a type of bloodsucking parasite . . . grin Heck, if they were only after a modicum of blood I could deal with that; it's the arm and the leg that cause problems! Debbi Alice's Restaurant Movement Party? Maru ;) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Collapse Chapter 5 - The Maya Collapses
Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wrote: big DEFANGED_snip What the hay? This is the second time DEFANGED has been inserted into one of my posts; I did not use any foul language -- and when I have typed 'hell,' 'damn' or such, it's gone through unchanged. Well, I've got to go, so will send this incomplete post; my rank tyro interpretation of the Mayan collapses is that they had more to do with bad societal choices, with environment degradation a lesser cause (although some of those choices led to deforestation and so on). But this article hints otherwise: http://meta-religion.com/Archaeology/Central_america/lost_mayan_ruins.htm ...Scientists believe the Maya fell prey to a number of cataclysmic environmental problems, including deforestation and drought, that led to their downfall, Irwin said... I've finally realized why I wanted to blame the Mayan choices more than the prior cultures studied in the book: I just plain don't like people who cut off bits of their prisoners and continue to torture them for up to two years before they're executed at a public festival. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment. Issue: is loss of a central government enough to speak of a society collapsing? Or would one refer to leftover remnants as continuation of that society; what about if the leftovers carry the seed and a similar society re-emerges? Debbi The Postman Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
On Oct 5, 2006, at 5:07 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 05/10/2006, at 9:19 PM, jdiebremse wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You really think that I think the Democrats are any better? Hypocrites and liars on both sides. You did leave me with that distinct impression.but maybe I'm just used to that being the default position of brin-l To clarify - you think the default position is of Brin-L is Democrat (or anti-Republican, even)? You're probably right. And to be honest, my default position is closer to Democrats than Republicans. I think that he was saying that the default position of Brin-L is that there isn't enough difference between the parties. I think the list mostly agrees that neither party really has a lock on good governance, integrity, and all that other desirable-in-a-political-party stuff. I happen to agree, but only to a point: I do not think that we would be in the state we're in if Gore/Lieberman or Kerry/Edwards had taken power in January 2001 or 2005 instead of Bush/Cheney. I am willing to believe that we'd be in a _different_ screwed-up state, but if the Clinton years are an indication, we would not have engaged in chest-beating international adventurism, wouldn't have sucked endless billions out of the economy, wouldn't have pumped the well dry by giving what little we don't have back to those who already have it, and the usual litany of Republican misdeeds. Okay, someone might have gotten a blow job in the white house, but I could live with that. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: We Will Not Be Afraid
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:11 PM Subject: RE: We Will Not Be Afraid I quoted the part that said it quote Alien unlawful enemy combatants may be tried for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commissions committed against the United States or its co-belligerents before, on, or after September 11, 2001. end quote That is the clause that sets up the procedures. It clearly refers not to just unlawful enemy combatants, but alien unlawful enemy combatants. The key is reading chapter 47 of the bill...where my quote comes from. Earlier it says: quote (a) PURPOSE.-This chapter codifies and estab- lishes procedures governing the use of military commis- sions to try unlawful enemy combatants for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commissions. end quote So, the bill states specifically that it's chapter 47 that codifies the procedures for using military commissions to try unlawful enemy combatants. Later in the chapter it says Alien unlawful enemy combatants may be tried. Nowhere does it say that citizens who are unlawful enemy combatants. I'm not sure if we are on the same page here. (Certainly, I posted the links I did for informative reasons and not as an example of my own beliefs. But I think you are missing the gist of the argument given.) What I am given to understand is not that US Citizens can be tried in a tribunal, but that they can be held indefinitely, a removal of habeas corpus rights westerners have enjoyed for many hundreds of years. This administration has done pretty much that with at least one citizen and a good number of aliens even to this day and I see that as the fear being expressed. As a side note Dan, I recommend listening to Sunday Monitor (I believe that is the name) on KPFT 90.1FM here locally Sunday evening at 6 PM. (Or alternately you can hear a podcast of the show at kpft.org or at http://themonitor.wordpress.com/ ) I listen after I take my son home and it really helps me to understand and keep a finger on the pulse of the far left. The show is not-quite-wingnut and pretty well spoken, and serves as a balance to the folks who keep identifying Mark Foley as a Democrat. OTOH, they make no attempt to be Fair and balanced.G Last Sunday they had a good bit of coverage (outraged coverage at that) of this bill. xponent Broadness Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
